Food Safety PlanningThe Food Safety Update section of Food Manufacturing is designed to offer ourreaders insight into the state of food safety concerns across the industry. Wereceived hundreds of responses to this month’s survey on food safety planning.Jesse Osborne, Editor

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans are a point of empha- sis in the food manufacturing industry as a result of pending Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) rules. Food Manufacturing polled readers regarding
FSMA, HACCP and their constantly evolving food safety plans.

According to the survey results, nearly 75 percent of respondents believe the regulations governing food safety are a good fit for the industry, compared to 16. 5 percent that
believe there is not enough oversight in food manufacturing facilities. Only 9. 2 percent
of those surveyed feel there is too much regulation.

Meanwhile, more than 96 percent of survey respondents said HACCP is a useful tool
to assist the industry in securing a safe food supply, while just under four percent said
food manufacturers would do better without a regulated food safety program.

Although more than 85 percent of respondents believe FSMA will help increase food
safety across the industry, more than 54 percent said they do not feel the FDA is providing enough guidance to prepare food manufacturers for the new requirements under
FSMA regulations.

The vast majority of respondents (90.1 percent) said they believe it is fair that the
FSMA made HACCP planning mandatory across all food industry segments, instead of
just for meat, poultry, seafood and juice.

More than two-thirds of respondents (67.8 percent) said their facility has begun making changes to its HACCP plans in response to the Food Safety Modernization Act.

More than 69 percent said facility updates to food safety plans are prompted by theprocessing of new products, while 68.6 percent said food safety plan updates were theresult of new equipment being purchased. Meanwhile, 67.3 percent said the discoveryof a better or more efficient way of doing things prompted changes. Other categories mentioned by respondents include: Changing regulations(63.4 percent), new ingredients being used (58.2) and prompting from auditors ( 42. 5).

Internal QA/QC experts are viewed as the most valuable sources when consulting with experts inwriting and evaluating food safety programs, at 64.7 percent. Third-parties/customer auditors (58.8) andUSDA/FDA auditors ( 47. 7) also rated highly. Other sources of note included paid consultants ( 35. 3) and equip-ment manufacturers ( 31. 4).In terms of changes being made at facilities over the last 24 months due to food safety regulations,improved employee training programs top the list, at 78.2 percent. Changes to product labeling was alsoa top reporter, checking in at 51 percent. Other significant areas of change included processing chang-es due to allergens ( 40.1), the purchase of new equipment to improve food safety ( 36. 7) and thepurchase of software to improve record keeping ( 29. 25 percent).

When asked how regulatory oversight by local, state and federal food safety auditors impactoperations at your plant, a number of responses were received, including:“More stringent operational processes implemented.”“We are audit-ready at any time.”“Makes us aware of how well our compliance efforts are working.”“They verify we are in compliance and have provided useful information in helping us improveour program.”“Our company welcomes the review of our food safety programs to gain better knowledge andimprove our efforts.”“It doesn’t, our food safety programs already exceed any Federal/State requirements.” ◆